this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
798 points (97.6% liked)

politics

20594 readers
4410 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, has suggested he may run for president in 2028.

Reflecting on the Democrats’ loss to Donald Trump and JD Vance, he admitted: “A large number of people did not believe we were fighting for them in the last election – and that’s the big disconnect.”

Walz said his life experience, rather than ambition, would guide his decision.

Though his VP campaign was marred by gaffes, he remains open to running if he feels prepared.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

His debate performance was poor against Vance.

it was perfectly fine? He could most definitely run well after trump, due to the classic american flip flop phenomenon. Chances are he'd win, if the public is upset enough about how trump did, which right now, isn't looking great. And probably will continue to be that way.

He's literally obama, but white.

walz has also had a historically successful career in politics? Just look at what minnesota is doing.

[–] Sightline 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Run Walz if you want 8 more years of Republican rule.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

what kind of magical simulation must you be using to run these numbers my friend?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

To be fair, the black Obama will also be running in the 2028 primary

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Vance was polished, smooth, knew his talking points and bullshit claims cold. Walz, not so much. He didn't have good counters to a lot of the shit that Vance was throwing out. The broad consensus is that Vance handily won the debate, much like the broad consensus was that Harris trounced Trump in the debate.

He’s literally obama, but white.

He is not even close to being a white Obama. Obama is a highly skilled orator, extremely skilled debater, and a scholar. Tim Walz connects well with people--perhaps especially well with midwestern people--but he is not a particularly strong orator, is fairly weak in debates, and is definitely not a scholarly type. They may be close on policy, although I would hope that Walz would be farther to the left than Obama was.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

vance was a traditionally good debater in an academic fashion, sure.

But the population doesn't like people like that. That's why people like trump and biden get elected over people like vance. Same thing with bush.

He didn’t have good counters to a lot of the shit that Vance was throwing out.

he had good counters to the most important disinformation in that whole debate, including a lot of the more reasonable stuff that vance just parades about, walz actually has something to speak on in those moments. Vance was clearly just focusing on formality rather than actual debate skills. And to be fair, if he countered every factually incorrrect thing vance said, he wouldn't be able to say anything at all, which is even more of a loss because then you haven't gotten anywhere, and your opponent has spent the entire time yapping. It's literally the neo-nazi meme.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/17/americans-view-walz-more-positively-than-vance-but-many-arent-familiar-with-either-vp-nominee/

not done specifically on the debate, but evidently i think it's fair to claim it's relevance here.

The broad consensus is that Vance handily won the debate

i disagree, i think you would find most people would argue that vance held a better debate, but walz was generally a better speaker. You can't look at this strictly through a debate lens, the american public doesn't care about them.

He is not even close to being a white Obama. Obama is a highly skilled orator, extremely skilled debater, and a scholar. Tim Walz connects well with people–perhaps especially well with midwestern people–but he is not a particularly strong orator,

i would argue that obama is a really strong speaker, like generationally so, anybody can be skilled in a debate, what really matters when it comes to debating is factual accuracy, and being able to quickly make your point. Which is historically something democrats have struggled with.

Walz i would argue is a good public speaker, maybe not in a formal sense, but again we're talking about politics here, people like when their politicians are relatable and down to earth, and walz does really well at this. He's not a scholarly type, but you'd be hard pressed finding anybody on either side of the isle that wants an academic in power. Walz also has significant policy experience through minnesota, which obama has through his presidency. Though it is more prestigious.

Walz is definitely more socially progressive than obama is, but obama is a bit of a weird case. He's very center left.